Forum:Inline text styling
, , , , | discussion = }} The idea is to use one template to apply styling for inline text in order to replace the use of (currently) five existing templates (linked above). Comments I'm unsure how this template will really help us any more than using these 5 templates separately. Now, when we want to denote a paragon action, we simple write in the article, and everything gets formatted correctly, with no knowledge of how the formatting is accomplished. It Just Works®. With this template, as with in-line HTML code, the contributor has to know how the text for paragon actions should be formatted every time they wish to denote such an action. This is incredibly tedious and error-prone. In addition, if at some point in the future we decide that we don't really want to have that ugly-ass green color for a paragon action, we'd have to change it everywhere it's used. With the current system, we change the template and presto-chango, everything is now using the new format. All in all, this seems like a less elegant solution than what we currently have. -- Dammej (talk) 21:05, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :I thought about this particular issue. My train of thought lead me to the following solution: let us take the template as an example - we replace it with a redirect to the suggested template. The template will evaluate the source of the redirect (a simple #switch statement) and show the desired styling - I'll need to check this out, but I currently see no real issue with this. The same template could also be a quick styling for specific cases that only occur once or twice. --silverstrike 21:16, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I've no qualms with creating a general template such as this which can be used by other templates (such as ). There is some precedent for this seen in the template and templates which use it. My only issue is with using this proposed template to completely replace the other 5 you've listed here. ::I don't really see the advantage in making these templates redirects to this new template as opposed to invoking it with specific parameters. We already know how a paragon action should be formatted now... why not pass these as parameters to this generic template rather than using a switch statement? ::As long as we don't shift the burden of formatting back to the article in all cases, then I see no problem with a generic text-styling template being made available for use. -- Dammej (talk) 21:32, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, my intention was to remove those tags - I believe that too many template only serve to complicate rather then help - not just those five, but overall. We also have multiple template for spoilers for the various games, novels, comics, etc. rather then using one template and passing parameters. This is only my point of view and I accept that I may be the only one who believe so. :::Back to the subject at hand: we can just invoke the suggested template from the existing ones, or we can call the template and pass one parameter ( ) which is a lot of work for the template that is invoked many times, but simple for the rest which are invoked on specific articles. That is, if we think that this method is a good idea. --silverstrike 21:51, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::What do you have in mind then? The template you've listed in this proposal simply takes arguments for a text parameter, a color, and additional styling. It sounds to me like you want to extend this so that other arguments get prefilled based on the text of the first arg? That is, would be equivalent to writing ? I would be more amenable to this type of usage, since the user doesn't have to know how the text is styled to use it, and they could then override the defaults for some instances. There is still the issue of transforming the invocations into this new style, but that would be alleviated by making the current templates call this new one in the interim while the switch is being made. -- Dammej (talk) 22:31, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::The template that I made is just a quick draft. Adding the required logical statement is pretty straightforward and won't complicate the script - I'll incorporate the changes to the template tomorrow. --silverstrike 22:51, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::I made the changes, and now passing the first parameter will style the text. I have some weird issue with the default case, but I'll deal with it tomorrow... --silverstrike 23:14, July 4, 2011 (UTC) I am very strongly opposed to this. We have a system that works and I don't see one reason anywhere here to change it. Putting templates like this put an extra burden on the user to know exactly how it is done, and rather than switching to a more complicated system, why not just use the current system which has individual calls as appropriate. Having multiple templates may mean that we have more, but then we don't have to worry about mixing them up or people putting the wrong code in. Again we have a system that works, and as the old saying goes, why fix what isn't broken. And the system is working quite well actually. Lancer1289 16:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Regarding your last comment "why fix what isn't broken": That type of thinking would of prevented the tag template, this and the policy forums, and various other templates, policies/guidelines, etc. It also something that is against the wiki way of doing things - contributors keep editing articles, trying to phrase them better, add more information, and reorganize the way the information is displayed. By that I don't mean to imply that my suggestion or my way of doing things is the correct way, but that we need to try and improve and not stay with what we know. --silverstrike 18:02, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::Except this is a situation where the current system prevents unnecessary clutter in articles, and makes using the templates easier. Many people who have only contributed a small number of edits here know what those templates to, and changing it to a new system where they have to input more code into an article, and know the specifics of it, doesn't make one bit of sense to me. We have specific templates, for specific purposes, and everyone knows what they do. Your comment about improving things is valid and encouraged, but when a system works well, serves a purpose, is specific in its use, and a new system would complicate that system and make things harder for people to use it, then can you honestly say that makes sense? The current system works because of its simplicity and changing to a new complicated system could do exactly that, complicate a simple and easy to use system. And in all honestly, how many people know about the tag template and what it does? Everyone who edits an article knows what the five listed templates do and switching to a more complicated system defeats the purpose of them. The KISS principle applies here, "Keep It Simple S(insert favorite word here)". Lancer1289 18:22, July 5, 2011 (UTC) I was contemplating the reuse of the Note template. In each case we want to note something, by using , , or we can apply the styling on a non-common usage, but still maintain the default for not specifying anything, this can also allow contributors to apply very specific styling to text that only appear once of twice without the need to resort to HTML code. The other four templates are designed to apply styling for specific articles or usage and are not used throughout the wiki. --silverstrike 18:13, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :See my comment above for this. Lancer1289 18:22, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree with your KISS approach, for the most part. But let's leave those five templates aside for the time being. What if in a week, month, or year we need similar template for active, PC/XBOX/PS, or any other string? ::I was absent until a couple of days ago, and I was not aware of the cost template (I knew you were working on the article implementation, though) how would I know of it's existence? through the Mass Effect Wiki:Templates page? and if I were to look it up, would I have searched for styling for the word cost? It is more likely that I would search for something like emphasis, color, or similar string. I believe that this keeps with idea behind KISS. --silverstrike 18:41, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :::And I would disagree with that statement as you are proposing taking a simple system, using just the word for the template call, and replacing it with a more complicated system, I think is what you are planning on doing for the note template. Now instead of that simple and easy to use system, we now have to put in an additional parameter, which may be confusing to new people, and even seasoned editors who use the current system as they not only understand it, but it is just that, simple and easy to use. :::You also didn't answer my question above about simplicity, but I will answer yours. For that instance, I think having separate templates would be the way to go for simplicity, and effectiveness as again simplicity is the goal. The proposed system complicates a very simple, self-explanatory, and easy to use system and would replace it with something that could be confusing, that would probably would be an ongoing problem, and does the exact same thing, just with more, IMO, unnecessary wording. I do believe this is a case where KISS and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" apply as the system is very simple, and the calls are self-explanatory as to their purpose. Lancer1289 18:53, July 5, 2011 (UTC) Regarding simplicity: I think that and could be considered equally simple, but neither you nor I have ready access to a UI testing group to confirm or deny this claim. Which is to say: arguments regarding simplicity are by nature extremely subjective, and three people is hardly an adequate sample size to declare one or another mode of thinking more popular than another. Perhaps others wish to weigh in? At any rate, my concerns with the new template are satisfied when using specific key words will automatically apply a standard formatting. I'm still on the fence about whether I think this will ultimately be a benefit to the run-of-the-mill contributor, though. Organization or 'tidiness' of templates from a technical perspective is, admittedly, a low priority for me. -- Dammej (talk) 00:40, July 6, 2011 (UTC)